are anglo-american-style normative planning theories ... - are anglo...are anglo-american-style...

Are Anglo-American-Style Normative PlanningTheories Applicable in South Asian Cities?

An Exploratory Study

Bhuiyan Monwar AlamDepartment of Geography and Planning,

The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606 USA

Three types of normative planning theories have been popular among planners inthe United State and Western Europe in recent years, with a fourth knocking at thedoor. In contrast, rational planners in South Asian cities, realizing that theirresources are limited, have traditionally practised a synoptic approach to planning.Unfortunately, most of their planning initiatives have been futile, owing to thepoverty of this region. This has led planners and policy makers to search for appro-priate and innovative alternatives for planning in this region. This paper analyzesand explores the applicability of Anglo-American-style normative planning theoriesin the cities of South Asia. The author concludes that implementing Western-styleplanning theories in general, and normative planning theories in particular, ispremature, because an appropriate milieu does not yet exist in South Asian cities attheir present stage of development.

Key words: normative planning, South Asian cities, civil society, urban governance

Ces dernières années, trois types de théories normatives d’aménagement du terri-toire ont rencontré du succès auprès des aménageurs, tant aux États-Unis qu’enEurope occidentale ; une quatrième est annoncée. Malgré ce fait, les aménageursdans les villes de l’Asie du Sud, comprenant que leurs ressources étaient limitées, ontplutôt pratiqué une approche synoptique de l’aménagement. Malheureusement, laplupart de leurs initiatives n’ont mené à rien, par suite de la pauvreté de cetterégion ; ce fait les a amenés à chercher des solutions innovantes et mieux adaptées.Cet article examine la pertinence des théories normatives d’aménagement d’inspira-tion anglo-américaine dans les villes de l’Asie du Sud. L’auteur conclut que la miseen oeuvre de théories d'aménagement de type occidental, et plus spécialement de lesthéories normatives d’aménagement, serait prématurée, car l’environnement appro-prié pour les appliquer n’est pas encore en place dans les villes de l’Asie du Suddans leur état actuel de développement.

Mots clés : théorie normative d’aménagement du territoire, villes d’Asie du Sud,société civile, gouvernance urbaine

Introduction

The common factors in South Asian1 countries include a large proportion ofthe population living below the poverty line, a huge influx of people from

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 1 (2011) 72-93© 2011 AWG Publishing, Toronto Canada

rural to urban areas, the rapid spread of slums in cities, unhygienic sanitationsystems, polluted water, lack of electricity, lack of infrastructure, lack ofdoctors and nurses, spread of AIDS, a politically divided civil society, andlack of resources (Majumder et al. 1996). These countries, like other develop-ing countries of the world, are characterized by a greater degree of inequalityin resource management than is found in developed countries. In some ofthese nations, the roots of poverty and inequality in resource distribution lie ininherent socio-cultural factors that are consequences of colonization2

(Rondinelli 1993). In the past, most countries in this region adopted a synop-tic approach to planning, driven by a rational realization that their resourcesare limited. John D. Clark (1991) argues that many of these planning effortswere abandoned, and few of them have been completed (Rondinelli et al.1988). To achieve targeted growth rates, the governments of South Asiancountries make pragmatic national development plans for each sectoral activ-ity, conceived as long-term plans, mid-term plans, and short-term plans. Incontrast, Anglo-American style planning theories have rarely been applied inthis region.

Although there is a rich planning literature on theoretical perspectivesand their application to normative planning in the United States and WesternEurope, there are lacunae in the literature on the suitability and practice ofsuch approaches in Third World countries. Therefore, there is a great need forresearch on the applicability and usefulness of Anglo-American-style plan-ning theories, especially normative planning theories, in such countries.Watson (2002) broke the impasse with her seminal article on the usefulness ofnormative planning in sub-Saharan Africa. The present article follows up onWatson’s analysis; however, I sketch the reality of another troublesomeregion on the globe and portray the fitness and practice of normative planningin a different milieu—South Asia, home to one-sixth of the population of theglobe.

I acknowledge that application of planning theories is as important inrural areas of South Asia as in urban areas. I also believe that urban systemnetworks do not work independently from rural linkages and that theurban–rural relationship has great influence on the types of planning and theways in which they are practised in South Asia. The dominant presence ofnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) in rural areas, the presence of ruralgovernment representatives, and the roles of local elites in local planningsuggest that the applicability of normative planning in rural areas of thisregion merits investigation.

However, I limit my investigations to city areas, with specific explana-tion of rural areas as necessary. More specifically, I portray current scenariosin large cities of the region and inquire into the milieu for practice of norma-tive views of planning that have been part of the planning jargon in the Westfor the past two decades. I have chosen large cities over rural areas because

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 1 (2011)

Are Anglo-American-Style Normative Planning Theories Applicable? 73

most rural areas in this region have no formal planning authority, althoughthere may be local governments that are assigned certain responsibilities butdo not have authority to plan for their jurisdictions (Islam et al. 1994; Islamand Islam 1994). Rarely has any administrative entity hitherto practised inde-pendent, bottom-up planning; an exception is the Indian province of Kerala(Chettiparamb 2006). On the other hand, the planning departments in largeSouth Asian cities typically enjoy authority to prepare and implement plansfor their respective jurisdictions.

Understanding “planning” merits elucidation and elaboration of thescope in which I examine the application of normative views of planning inthis article. Nowadays the term “planning” is used in a broad sense thatincludes economic, social, environmental, and cultural aspects, amongothers. In this broad sense, people with variety of backgrounds from differentschools of thoughts are involved in the process, a significant portion of whomdo not have formal planning degrees. For the purposes of this study, I use theterm “planning” from a South Asian perspective, recognizing that people withno planning background may be performing planning tasks. By “planning,” Imean any dedicated actions been performed by the “designated” people,representing government authorities in general and the city authorities inparticular. Nonetheless, I do not discount the importance of other profession-als who are indirectly involved in the planning process of a city by creatingpressure on planners within their plausible scopes. For example, the role ofcivil society is gaining increasing importance in planning in South Asiancities. I analyze such roles of pressure groups in the appropriate sectionsbelow.

The article is organized as follows. First, I present a brief review of thecontemporary state of normative planning theories that could have relevanceto South Asian cities. This is followed by a brief presentation of urban gover-nance and planning practices in South Asia. I then elaborate the current socio-political and economic situation and elucidate the roles played by civil societyin South Asian cities. Finally, I offer an assessment of the applicability andpractice of normative views of planning in the region, followed by concludingremarks.

Normative Planning: A Brief Review

Andreas Faludi (1973) defines normative planning as a type of planningwhose objectives and goals are themselves, in turn, the objects of rationalchoices. However, the most widely used definition of normative planning wascoined by John Friedmann (1987, 1996), who suggested that in a socialsystem, normative planning is primarily concerned with the ends of action.Friedmann further suggests that the goals of normative planning are same asthose of the social system in which normative planning is to be implemented.


74 Bhuiyan Monwar Alam

The investigation of normative planning is extended to the ends instead oflimiting itself to the means.

Normative planning helps one to make choices about ends while beingaware of existing knowledge (Watson 2002). Often the ends of actions aredesigned by politics rather than by planning. Normative guidance in planningis not new, however. Several authors (Howe and Kauffman 1979; Beatley1984, 1991; Wachs 1985; Howe 1990, 1994) have articulated their thoughtson normative values in planning. Louis Albrechts (2006) postulates thatnormative planning should be used to frame an actor- and space-orientedpicture for the planner and should be executed in a fair and respectful manner.He presents five normative viewpoint characteristics: selective planning,relational-annex-inclusive planning, integrative planning, visioning, andaction-oriented planning. Geraint Ellis (2004) states that normative principlesare considered important in planning processes when issues relating to third-party rights arise, while Bickerstaff and Walker (2001) discuss publicinvolvement in planning processes, citing participation experiences anddevelopments originating in transport planning.

Tore Sager (2001) presents four strands of positive planning theory:zoning, the success or failure of planning, differences in implementation andthe results of planning between entities, and differences in planning styles andtheir uses. He advocates heightened public participation in planningprocesses, but contends that their involvement should not be limited to oneplanning theory or practice. Michael Neuman (2005) addresses four primaryconcerns within city planning theories: explanation, prediction, justification,and normative guidelines. Central to Neuman’s theme is planners’ attention toretaining “urban” approaches in city planning theory. He argues that norma-tive planning, combined with urban theories, has suffered from and is limitedby “unitary or pluralist conceptions of the good” (2005, 136).

While some planners focus on what constitutes a good or bad urban strat-egy, Gunder and Hillier (2007) challenge the normative perspectives of strate-gic urban planning. They hold that normative perspectives help to definewhether a city is healthy, stating that while the envisioning of utopia is aproductive force, normative planning elements should also embrace the goalof making reality better.

I focus here on four views of normative planning: the communicativeapproach (Healey 1997, 1999; Innes 1995; Forester 1989); the Just Cityapproach (Fainstein 1995, 2000); the multicultural approach (Sandercock1998a, 1998b, 2000); and the Lacanian approach (Hillier and Gunder 2003;Gunder and Hillier 2004). Since the Lacanian approach to planning literatureand application is as yet inchoate, I focus mostly on the first three approaches.These concepts are reviewed briefly below. While my review is brief and notall-inclusive, I emphasize those aspects that I envision as suitable for a SouthAsian context.



The communicative planning approach is largely influenced, first, by theworks of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas (1990a, 1990b), reputed “father”of the German school of critical theory of planning. Habermas proposed theidea that the public realm should be reconstituted through open and publicconversation and debate. Second, the communicative planning approach isinfluenced by John Dewey and Richard Rorty’s notions of American pragma-tism. Like Habermas, other advocates of this approach postulate that commu-nication itself is the principal part of the practice of planning (Forester 1989).This approach inverts the traditional “top-down” and “expert-driven” plan-ning process (Healey 1997). Communicative planning theorists believe in thepositive roles played by civil society. Patsy Healey (1999, 114) argues thatcommunicative planners should strive for shared understanding, mutual trust,and “identification,” which are built up and linger as new “cultural resources”or “cultural capital” within sense-making frameworks. The communicativeplanning approach focuses on regional-level governments (both sub-nationaland local) and on individual human beings—as citizens, as planners, or aspoliticians. Healey (1999) argues that inter-subjective efforts toward mutualunderstanding lead to a new concept of reasoning, which emphasizes howplanning practices enable solutions to be discovered communicatively.

Equity, justice, distribution, and redistribution are the norms of the JustCity approach—richly informed by Susan Fainstein (2000). David Harvey(2000) has also applied the Just City approach, with local governments andagencies as the units of analysis. However, Fainstein’s Just City approach isespecially relevant to South Asian context and merits brief elaboration.Advocates of the Just City approach are influenced by neo-liberal develop-ment theories and post-Marxist political economy. In Fainstein’s (2000)vision, society is composed of groups instead of classes or ethnicities. Sheargues that these groups can benefit from the distributive planning processes.Like theorists of the communicative planning approach, Fainstein is alsoconcerned with people’s participation in the planning process, but hers is adifferent perspective. Fainstein defines “planners” as autonomous or inde-pendent, which is different from the communicative planning approach’sdefinitions of “government planners.”

Fainstein (2000) argues that different spatial forms have differentimpacts on the economic growth and environmental sustainability of a city orstate. However, ambiguity persists in her approach: she insists on a planningmodel in which the government has the smallest possible role and defers to acapitalist economic system. She also promotes a state or nation that is entre-preneurial and welfare oriented. Fainstein (2000) fails to clarify, however,how resources should be distributed in a Just City, if there is minimal govern-ment intervention in the planning process (Watson 2002). Fainstein’s (2000)best example of the Just City is Amsterdam, where spatial diversity and variedneighbourhoods are accompanied by a state system characterized by a welfare



philosophy, a powerful civil society, and public ownership of land. The multicultural approach in normative planning is influenced by

cultural studies and postmodernism, and has its roots in advocacy planning.Theorists of communicative planning and the multicultural approach have incommon an endeavour to shift the emphasis in planning from consequencesto consciousness, and from end results to process (Beauregard 1998; Neuman2000). Leonie Sandercock contends that civil society acts as an autonomousbody to bargain with the government and as a catalyst for societal change. Sheviews society as a system consisting of different groups based on race, gender,and ethnicity (Sandercock 1998a, 2000).

Identity is another aspect that Sandercock considers an important factorfor democratic societies. She rules out the notion of universal citizenshipclaimed by communicative planners, arguing instead for the primacy of vari-ous groups who are different in culture and identity. She argues that cities,societies, and states should practise the politics of many,3 that is, democracyas a “politics of difference” (Sandercock 1998a, 1998b, 2000). Sandercocktrusts in the “local knowledge” of people, in contrast to the “expert knowl-edge” of Healey (1999).

Recent pedagogical developments in planning theory are characterizedby a trend toward importing the Lacanian psychoanalytic paradigm(Allmendinger and Gunder 2005; Hillier and Gunder 2003; Gunder andHillier 2004; Gunder 2005). While these writers invoke similar Lacanianthemes, they vary in their discussions of particular planning issues. WhileAllmendinger and Gunder (2005) address the role of planners, agencies,processes, and other actors in the administrative framework by incorporatingLacanian perspectives as they relate to issues in modern planning, Hillier andGunder (2003) and Gunder and Hillier (2004) take a “developmental assess-ment” approach to their analysis of planning theory. Gunder and Hillier arguethat because “Lacan conceptualized many of his psychological ideasspatially” (2004, 229), his writings are relevant and applicable to understand-ing the processes of planning decision making and development assessment.They attempt to take planning theory beyond its current status to applyLacanian approaches in search of a better understanding of “actor behavioursin strategic and statutory planning” (219). Finally, Gunder (2005) citesJacques Lacan’s and Henri Lefebvre’s Freudian-inspired insights into theabstract and symbolic world of “the desired and wanted” realities of planning.He draws on Lacan’s concept of “jouissance” to help explain public wants vis-à-vis global capitalism’s powerful actors as they attempt to negotiate a path toa utopian society.

Urban Governance and Planning Practices in South Asia

In South Asia, attempts have been made to define and redefine the role of the



state and of planning agencies, mostly as a response to donor insistence andinternational pressure. The attrition of state agencies’ power in South Asiancountries has been the result of a number of factors, including glaring ineffi-ciencies and massive corruption by civil servants at all levels, falling revenue,and the adoption of structural adjustment programs (Task Force onGovernment Malpractices 1991, 400). These factors have precipitatedincreased demand for downsizing national and state government activitiesand operations by reducing manpower for efficient, effective, and timelyservices. Despite the wisdom behind such demands for small but efficientgovernment at national and state levels, South Asian countries continue tohave inefficient surfeits of manpower. This unsustainable economic strategyhas been adopted by governments throughout the region to help youth of thegoverning political party to find employment and thus to reduce the unem-ployment rate, at least marginally (Salahuddin 1992).

Local and city governments in this region enjoy very limited power,authority, and resources, which forces them to function within a limitedscope. The primary reason for this limitation is the dominance of top-downplanning practices. This heavy-handed approach has for many years been themajor obstacle to the introduction of democratic norms of planning practices,and reflects the lack of popular participation in the planning process, whichinstead involves only a few officials with little or no formal training incontemporary planning issues and practices. Often the planning process, andthereby its outcomes, is politically motivated: an influential local leaderwithin the governing party or a powerful business leader defines the scope ofdevelopment projects. In the recent past, however, there have been signs ofmore flexibility in conceptualizing and applying planning within the region.

The passage of India’s Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) in 1992opened the door for bottom-up planning practices to replace the top-downapproach, although this has occurred sporadically—for example, in the stateof Kerala (Chettiparamb 2006). However, there remain gaps between Keralaand the rest of India and South Asia generally. Kerala is by far the leading statein most aspects of modernizing social and economic life in India. Kerala is notrepresentative of other Indian states, or of other South Asian countries.Therefore, although planning has become democratic and pluralistic inKerala recently, this is not so in the rest of the region.

In general, South Asia has concentrated on physical planning for years,ignoring social, environmental, and cultural aspects of planning issues.Depending on the sizes and types of governments, South Asian countriesexhibit both single-tier and multi-tier planning structures. In countries, suchas India and Pakistan, that consist of several states or provinces, planning isadministered by both central and provincial governments. In contrast, inBangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Maldives, planning takes placeunder unitary national government system. Irrespective of the national



government system, South Asian countries generally have more than onelevel of government. For example, Bangladesh has national, district, upazila,4and union parishad5 levels of government. However, often the plans made byplanners at any level of government are not implemented; in other words theplans are “on paper only.” Such plans are initiated sometimes to borrowforeign funds, sometimes with honest goals (although these are not imple-mented due to lack of funds), and sometimes merely as a result of politicalleaders’ self-interest. The end result is that the plans do not usually material-ize, and the planning bodies are therefore considered inefficient and impotent.Nonetheless, city governments are still capable of providing basic services toa portion of city dwellers, despite the ubiquitous visibility of frequent powershutdowns, insufficient water supply, insufficient sewerage facilities, andinadequate garbage-disposal facilities. It is worth mentioning here that about30 % of city dwellers live in bastees6 and usually receive no urban servicesfrom city governments (Dutt and Pomeroy 2008).

Although there are many actors involved in the planning processes inSouth Asian cities, a generalized picture emerges. First, there is a growingrealization among government officials and leaders that they cannot providebasic urban services to all residents, despite the large number of ministries andgovernment bodies directly or indirectly involved in urban affairs (Khan1994; Mathur 2000). These governments and city authorities are involvedonly in such areas as administration, resource mobilization, physical plan-ning, land-use management, and water and sanitation. Although sectors suchas housing, environmental management, and poverty alleviation are alsoamong the main concerns of these government bodies, they have less directrole in these sectors. Second, national and state/provincial (in case of Indiaand Pakistan) governments are assisted by local governments in areas such asroad maintenance, education, primary health care, and waste disposal. Third,there has been increasing formal and informal participation by private organi-zations in the management of urban services. In formal sectors, these privateagencies have been contributing in areas such as housing, public transporta-tion systems, garment and other industries, education, and business andcommerce. However, the typical beneficiaries of services provided by formalprivate organizations are wealthy and middle-income populations. Bycontrast, the existence of private organizations in the informal sector haspromoted transportation systems such as rickshaw7 and small cottage indus-tries. Fourth, community-based organizations (CBOs) have arisen in largecities. For example, in New Delhi, Bombay, Karachi, and Dhaka, community-based police forces patrol different parts of the city at night. There are alsocommunity-based health clinics and hospitals. However, the proportions ofcitizens covered by such CBOs are still low. Finally, there is a growingnumber of NGOs serving needy people; however, their role in urban areas isstill abysmal compared to their contribution in rural areas. The NGOs princi-



pally provide services to bastee residents in such sectors as potable water,primary health care, family planning, adult education, and sanitation.

From a South Asian perspective, the roles of NGOs and CBOs areextremely important. These organizations have worked as subsidiary actorsand agencies in different aspects of urban life where national, provincial, andlocal/city governments are incapable of providing, or too inefficient toprovide, basic services. In other words, NGOs and CBOs have emerged, andtheir number and the scope of their functions have increased, in South Asiancities because of the absence of local government initiatives where the NGOsand CBOs are more efficient and effective in providing services. Thus, onecan presume that different types of non-governmental agencies are informallyinvolved at different levels in the planning process, working parallel to formalgovernment bodies. These non-governmental agencies work as pressuregroups, as parts of a civil society.

Current Socio-political and Economic Situation in South Asia

The socio-political scenario in South Asia is substantially different from thosein the United States and Western Europe. In South Asia, a substantial propor-tion of people live below the poverty line. A huge influx of people from rural tourban areas is a common phenomenon in this region. Bastees are scattered indifferent parts of cities; unhygienic sanitation systems, polluted water, lack ofelectricity, and lack of infrastructure, coupled with poverty, are the commonfeatures of bastees (Majumder et al. 1996). Although some bastee residents areinvolved in the informal economic sector, such as light industries and services(e.g., garment and rickshaw pulling), the bastees in big cities have become safeshelters for urban criminals. Police collect bribes from criminals on a regularbasis in preference to arresting them. The insufficient infrastructure, includingpoor road conditions and insufficient public transportation services, are otherdark facets of urban problems in these large cities.

The economic crisis in South Asian countries is severe, with some excep-tions. For example, Nepal’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita wasestimated at US$1 100 in 2008 (CIA 2009b), and not only Nepal but othercountries of the region rank at the bottom of the ladder of economic develop-ment. The estimated GDP per capita of Bangladesh was only US$1 500 in2008 (CIA 2009a), while Pakistan’s was around US$2 600 (CIA 2009c). Thesituation is even worse if one investigates the distribution of resources. Aminuscule percentage of people control a major share of wealth, while about30 % of city dwellers live in bastees. About one-half of the region’s popula-tion lives below the subsistence level (Dutt and Pomeroy 2008). AlthoughIndia and Pakistan are nuclear powers, they are powerless in alleviatingpoverty. Indian cities such as the much-discussed Bangalore and Mumbaihave grown fast in last decade by embracing business in the information



technology sector, but the vast majority of Indian people remain untouched byit. Particularly worth mentioning is the situation in eastern India, where asubstantial proportion of people live from hand to mouth. The politicalturmoil caused by groups seeking independence from India has caused insta-bility in this part of India.

The condition of the health sector is extremely poor in South Asian cities.Lack of doctors and nurses, along with scarcity of medicines, is commonplacein government hospitals. The scarcity of medicines is due not only to govern-ments’ inability to supply them but also to massive corruption by health prac-titioners, who sell government-supplied medical supplies on the black marketto earn illegal money. Bastee residents can hardly get appropriate treatmentunless they are helped by charitable organizations or philanthropists. Variousfatal diseases are prevalent in the bastees. The increasing spread of AIDS inlarge South Asian cities accentuates the region’s poor health system; forexample, India ranks highest in the world in terms of numbers infected withAIDS.

South Asia has persistently been a region of political instability in thepast. New forms of violence and terrorism are shaping the political arena.Bomb blasts in public places and killings of innocents are becoming a tritephenomenon of urban life. It is popularly believed that politicians sponsorcriminal groups, who act as their musclemen and vote collectors during elec-tions. Most South Asian countries, with the exceptions of India and Sri Lanka,cannot practise democracy on an ongoing basis. Although these two countriesalso have political issues, including independence movements in Kashmirand seven eastern states (the “seven sisters”8) in India and by the LiberationTigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, their armed forces have shiedaway from assuming state power. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, by contrast, thearmed forces have commanded state power time and again since indepen-dence. Nepal and Bhutan had traditional kingships, but have recently aban-doned them. The example of Bhutan’s first ever general election and theabolition of kingship in Nepal, both of which took place in 2008, are worthmentioning here. The tiny island state of Maldives was governed by the samepresident for years, until he lost the country’s first ever general election in2008. Although Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan have enjoyed democrati-cally elected governments intermittently in the past decade, their electionshave also been characterized as shams on many occasions.

The rise of extremist political powers and the use of religion by so-calleddemocratic political parties are also major problems in South Asian politics.India’s rule by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Indian People’s Party thatsponsors Hindu fundamentalisms, for eight years and the reign of one coali-tion party (Jamat-E-Islam) in Bangladesh in the recent past are two suchexamples. The misuse of power by ruling parties has become an alarmingphenomenon in the region. The demolition of the historical Babri Mosque9 in



Ayodhya, India, by the Hindu fundamental party Bishshaw Hindu Parishad(BHP, or World Hindu Union) and its allies on 6 December 1992 is a dramaticexample of such abuse of power. The genocide of about 3 000 Muslims by thefundamentalist governing party in Gujarat, India, is the latest in a series ofsuch notorious acts by “democratic political” parties in South Asia.Afghanistan, the newest member of the South Asian Association for RegionalCooperation (SAARC), is teetering in all respects following its rule by thefundamentalist Taliban regime, toppled by the U.S.-led coalition’s invasion in2001. Suicide bombing in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan is far fromnovel, while Bangladesh, India, and Nepal also occasionally experience suchhorrific acts. Political killing is also not new in the region: the latest exampleis the killing of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, the first Muslim woman primeminister in the world, but the region has seen other political assassinations inthe past—Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and Rajeev Gandhi of India;Liakat Ali Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and Ziaul Haq of Pakistan; SheikhMujibar Rahman and Ziaur Rahman of Bangladesh; Birendra Bir BikramShah Dev of Nepal; and Ranasinghe Premadasa of Sri Lanka, to name a few.

The region has more than 1 000 languages and several ethnic groups.This has created tensions between ethnic groups and the governments thatrepresent the mainstream (Clark 1991). The tension between the pahari andbangali ethnic groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, and theindependence movements by some ethnic groups in the “seven sisters” inEastern India, are just two examples. Nepal has faced similar problemsbecause of Maoist movements. Pakistan, too, has confronted similar issuesfor several years: Shiite–Sunni tensions have claimed many lives. Fordecades, the tiny island country of Sri Lanka has fought against the separatistLTTE, who persistently staged violence and waged traditional war against theSri Lankan Army.

Thus, it is apparent that almost all South Asian countries have encoun-tered some sort of serious trouble that is rooted in ethnic differences.Nevertheless, the problem that has caused the greatest damage to the region’seconomic, social, political, and cultural aspects is the issue of Kashmir. WhileKashmir was historically an independent state, both India and Pakistan havebeen claiming it as theirs since the ousting of the British by the successfulnon-violent non-cooperation movement of the people of what was thenUnited India,10 led by Mahatma Gandhi, in 1947. On 13 August 1948, oneyear after the creation of India and Pakistan, the United Nations SecurityCouncil passed Resolution No. 47, which gave all authority to the Kashmiripeople to write their own future—whether to merge with India, to merge withPakistan, or to be an independent country. Unfortunately, the government ofIndia has never accepted this resolution, and the Kashmiri people have there-fore never had a chance to cast their votes to decide their fate. The result is thatKashmir is divided in two parts, two-thirds ruled by India, the rest by



Pakistan, and nothing by the Kashmiris. Both India and Pakistan have wastedbillions of dollars on this dispute that could otherwise have been used toimprove the welfare of the poor—health, education, food, and shelter alike.

The Role of Civil Society in South Asia

The definition of the term “civil society” determines how civil society isconceptualized (Watson 2002). Chris Allen (1997) characterizes it as havingtwo main elements: NGOs and “autonomous societal groups.” For Allen,these two groups behave differently from the state, act as watchdogs, andengage themselves in conflict with governments to achieve and maintaindemocratic rule and atmosphere in a country. Cathy McIlwaine (1998),however, argues that civil society is not created spontaneously but, rather,must be created by groups of people. Civil societies do not exhibit any directpower, nor do they share power institutionally with governments, but theyprotest and bargain against and with governments to shape an improved futuresociety, the goals being to maintain democracy, societal values, ethics, laws,and norms.

The role of civil society in South Asia is similar, although it variesdepending on particular countries’ political, social, and cultural atmospheres.NGOs have grown in most parts of this region to play an important role aspartners of civil society, along with intellectuals, informed citizens’ groups,women activists’ groups, and environmentalists. The primary reason fornurturing NGOs in South Asia is economic: they bring funds from developedcountries and act as development partners for governments. Without doubt,NGOs such as Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), thelargest NGO in the world, and the Grameen Bank, founded by Nobel laureateProfessor Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh, have brought economicsolvency, at least in terms of promoting the survival of the poor. The modelsof these two organizations have been followed not only by other South Asiannations but by countries on other continents as well. The poor are now betteroff than they were three decades ago; however, the Human DevelopmentIndices of South Asian countries remain low, and overall economic conditionsare still precarious.

A remarkable improvement in South Asian countries fostered by theNGOs is the empowerment of women (Devine 2006; Islam and Ahsan 1996).However, some scholars believe that women’s participation still depends onlocal elites and on household heads (Clark 1991; Devine 2006). Despite suchscepticism, it is evident that people’s participation in development programsin general, and women’s participation specifically, has grown in this populousregion of the globe over the past two decades. This has improved women’sempowerment—at least marginally (Devine 2006; Staudt 1991). It is worthmentioning that the trends of success of NGOs in South Asian countries are



not uniform, but exhibit a differentiated character. On many occasions, NGOshave not succeeded in achieving their goals of empowering women andincreasing participation in development programs due to people’s religiousconstraints and beliefs (Islam and Ahsan 1996).

The autonomous societal group is another partner of civil society thatengages in conflict with the government in order to promote democracy. Suchgroups include scholars (e.g., university teachers), elite businessmen, andcivil servants. However, although these groups have been participating indevelopment issues in South Asian countries, in many instances they work asinterest groups, motivated by self-interest. They also lend their support, forselfish reasons, to one political party or another. Along with some NGOs, theyoften serve mainly the interest of political parties and of the government(Devine 2006). The Bangladeshi NGO Proshika11 exhibits this character andhas strayed from its ethical path of acting as an element of civil society, havingworked for a specific political party. In early 2004, the main opposition partyin Bangladesh declared a specific date (30 April 2004) on which it wanted totopple the then legitimate government, in violation of the country’s constitu-tion. The opposition party declared that it would bring 3 million people fromrural areas to the capital city, stage an agitation movement against the govern-ment, and do anything necessary to remove that government. It was laterrevealed that Proshika had promised the opposition party to bring its borrow-ing members to the capital and force them to agitate against the democrati-cally elected government. It is worth mentioning here that such acts by NGOsare not only against the laws of specific countries but also violations of thenoble ethics of an NGO—to help disadvantaged groups of the society andwork as partners of “good” civil society.

Assessing the Applicability of Normative Planning in South Asian Cities

In this section, I examine the characteristics of different constituents ofnormative planning and explore whether the current socio-politico-economicmilieu is suitable for the application of normative planning in this region. Theprincipal element of a multicultural approach is the visible presence of abenevolent, unbiased, and fair civil society that acts as the pivotal agent ofsocietal change. This approach proposes planning influenced by advocacygroups representing diversified citizens based on race, gender, and ethnicityso that all segments are represented and none is excluded (Sandercock 1998a,2000).

Planning ought to be done outside the government system of administra-tion and economy (Sandercock 1998b). If the civil society plays its fair role interms of ethics, norms, societal rules, and democracy, normative planning canyield better results than traditional top-down planning approaches that aredonor driven, often sectoral, and weakly managed by the state (Watson 2002).



Unfortunately, civil society in South Asia is politically motivated. Claims toborrow money from donor countries and agencies in order to work impartiallyand relentlessly to help eradicate poverty, establish human rights, and providebasic needs to the poor are spurious. In South Asia, consensus is frequentlyachieved on a temporary basis, outside established institutions and divorcedfrom power. This does not always produce the intended outcomes and doesnot serve the community en masse. The stakeholders come to a consensus fortheir own interests and benefits, which do not help the society as a whole butbenefit the stakeholders alone. Many NGOs and members of civil society inthis region are corrupt at the personal and institutional levels; they cannotescape their own avarice in order to act as neutral pressure groups on govern-ment (Devine 2006). Because the civil society is politically motivated, it hasbeen a platitude that like-minded NGOs and members of civil society keepsilent or even support the “wrongdoings” and planning of governments thatshare similar views. Such clientelistic and unethical behaviour on the part ofcorrupt members of civil society means that groups act as interest groupsinstead of pressure groups in this region, motivated by power and greed. Theexistence of such a dysfunctional civil society not only makes it difficult tochange society from the grassroots level but also acts as a deterrent to build-ing a path toward a better society through better planning. The negative rolesplayed by civil society act as a frictional force to impede the introduction andpractice of the multicultural approach to normative planning in South Asia.

Sandercock’s (1998a, 1998b, 2000) recognition and celebration of iden-tity may not be applicable to South Asian cities, as the struggle of majority ofthe citizens in this region is driven by the politics of materialism, not by thepolitics of lifestyle or identity. Most countries in the region, apart from India,are troubled by political instability, while all are stigmatized by corruption,inefficiency, and nepotism. All South Asian countries have ranked high on theCorruption Perceptions Index over the past few years. India and Pakistan havespent billions of dollars on armed conflict since gaining independence in1947. Unconstitutional attempts to topple elected governments are not new tothe region. The people of South Asia face all sorts of urban problems gener-ated by poverty, scarcity of resources, and skewed distributions of wealth.Their first preference is to survive; then come housing, health, and education.Questions of identity or lifestyle, which may be of major concern to citizens ofNorth America and Western Europe, are far behind the above-mentionedfactors for the people of South Asian cities. Sandercock’s propositions thushave limited application to the cities of this region. One point deserves clari-fication, however: South Asia does not experience colour-based race prob-lems. Although problems of religion, class, and ethnicity, which are obviouslycriteria for identity, do exist, generally race is less important to the people ofthis region than securing basic materials for survival.

The communicative planning approach focuses on smaller administra-



tive and geographic units of a nation or government and considers that plan-ners ought to be primary actors of the societal system. Storytelling and non-neutral values of planners are important to this approach (Mandelbaum 1996,2000), which proposes transforming a nation toward democratization byempowering local governments and organizations (Innes 1995; Mohan andStokke 2000). Similar trust is bestowed by the multicultural approach in its“politics of many,” that is, democracy and local knowledge of people(Sandercock 1998a, 1998b, 2000), which accords with the expert knowledgeof Healey (1999). In South Asia, however, it has been almost impossible forlocals outside the broader structural forces to solve their economic problems.Planning practices have persistently been top-down, and people’s participa-tion in the planning process has been minimal in the past. The typical plannerin South Asia is a government employee, and s/he must follow her/hisemployer’s directives. S/he plans within corrupt administrative systems andcannot represent a specific group within society because s/he is paid by thegovernment. The overall environment within which s/he performs planningtasks is not democratic but authoritarian. Although most South Asian coun-tries, including Nepal, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, are proceeding through thestructural adjustment policies of the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund, India directs its own adjustment policies, being a powerfulmember of these two world organizations. Some South Asian countries havestrong systems of local government (e.g., India) and organizations, whileothers do not. Local actors in most countries are incapable of conducting andmanaging plans that are suitable for themselves. Although localism is veryimportant to the communicative approach of planning practice (Smith 2000),current socio-political conditions in South Asia is not hospitable to it.Prevailing conditions are apparently unsuited to the application of commu-nicative planning in South Asian cities at their current stage of development,with the minor exceptions of a few Indian states such as Kerala (Chettiparamb2006).

The Just City approach proposes that a nation needs responsible institu-tional and administrative systems to achieve social development (Fainstein2000). Fainstein’s economic world has a capitalist bias that tends towardcontinuing economic growth; Fainstein believes in entrepreneurialism and ina welfare state responsible for the social and economic well-being of the citi-zenry. For her, the Just City will distribute its resources among the people oftheir society. This approach requires huge monetary resources for the physi-cal reshaping of cities, which the poor cities of South Asia cannot afford. Thisapproach also assumes a strong regulatory system that can police and holdgrowth at the urban edge, and it assumes that the edge is not occupied byspreading informal settlements. But South Asian cities exhibit feeble regula-tory systems, incapable of policing growth at the urban edges and preservingthem from illegal occupation. In reality, the edges of South Asian cities are in



general expanding fast, in the form of unplanned mushroom-type develop-ment characterized by high population density and lack of basic infrastruc-ture. The edges are expanding in non-uniform patterns, and many parts areseized by informal settlers who wield political clout through violent tactics.Further, South Asian countries, cities, and planning bodies have maintaineddistance from both the entrepreneurial and the welfare nature of government,and are therefore not distributive in nature, as required by the Just Cityapproach. Thus, Fainstein’s equitable Amsterdam-like city is merely a dreamin South Asia, at least at this stage of the region’s development. I suggest,therefore, that the Just City approach is not applicable to South Asian cities,where a major proportion of the population is poor and about 30 % of peoplelive in bastees.

It appears, then, that Western-style normative views of planning (e.g., themulticultural approach, the communicative approach, and the Just Cityapproach), are not applicable to South Asian cities at their current stage,which is characterized by a top-down approach to planning, popular partici-pation in development initiatives, mushroom-type expansion at the edges ofcities, and illegal occupation of public lands, coupled with huge influx ofpeople from rural to city areas. Since the introduction of a Lacanian perspec-tive is in its infancy in the Western planning literature, its suitability for appli-cation in South Asia needs to be scrutinized in the future but certainly not atthe current stage.

Conclusions

South Asian cities have more in common than not. These commonalities haveprevailed over time because of their common histories, common cultures,similar economic situations, and similar languages, as well as the similarphysical shapes of their cities. Current conditions in the region’s large citieshave been highly influenced, first, by the long rule of the Mughal Emperors(from the 11th to the 18th centuries), and then by British colonial planningpractices for the next 200 years (Dutt and Pomeroy 2008). The presence ofbazaars, central mosques or temples, playgrounds, and chowks (perpendicu-lar intersections of two main roads in a city) is common to New Delhi, Dhaka,Karachi, Colombo, Mumbai, and Kolkata alike. Despite differences in politi-cal systems, these cities have similar planning functions, scopes, and, mostimportantly, planning outlooks—which have traditionally focused on physi-cal planning. This is likely to remain the trend into the future, despite recentbends in planning practices in minuscule places such as the Indian state ofKerala (Chettiparamb 2006). Such similarities in planning practices amongcities provide a fertile and common field for investigation of normative plan-ning practices in South Asian cities.

For some time, planning has been an important phenomenon in policy



making in the context of South Asia’s political, social, and economic devel-opment problems, through harnessing both human and material resources andtheir proper utilization (Zahid 1996). To achieve targeted rates of growth, thegovernments of South Asian countries have made pragmatic national devel-opment plans for each sectoral activity, consisting of long-term, mid-term,and short-term plans. Apart from these, it is rare in this region for planners tofollow the planning theories informed by North American and WesternEuropean scholars. There is some scope for the application of these exoticplanning theories in South Asian countries, but experimentation requiressome basic changes in the structural systems of administration, improvementsin economic sectors, eradication of corruption from society, and ethical devel-opment among civil society.

The planning profession in South Asia is complicated by myriad agenciesfor approvals and licensure and by the various associations (or affiliations) towhich planners belong (Chettiparamb 2006). One problem faced by the citiesand towns of South Asia, and specifically by secondary cities and towns, is thatthey typically do not have professional planning positions within their admin-istrative structure. Thus individuals are working as “planners” despite nothaving proper knowledge of planning theories or basic pedagogical training inplanning ethics and norms of society. In such a situation, it is unlikely that thepeople will get the requisite benefits from the “planners” who shape theircommunity—whether spatially, economically, socially, or environmentally.

Government organizations frequently lack the resources to make appro-priate plans or, once plans are made, to implement them. The lack of resourcesis thus detrimental to the application of planning and planning theory in thecities of South Asia (Zahid 1996). In addition, planners are frequently uneth-ical and serve the interests of elite groups within their societies, whereas theirresponsibility should instead be to serve the people and to promote socialjustice. The situation therefore becomes one in which planners, NGOs, andautonomous societal groups consort to play the role of a “devil society”instead of a “civil society.” Although this phenomenon seems surprising, it isa sad reality in the South Asian context today. This limits the intended appli-cation of planning, as well as planning theories in general and Western-stylenormative planning in particular, in South Asian cities. In the past, effortshave been made by planning commissions in different countries to replicateplanning techniques practised in developed world (Peattie 1987; Neuman2005). Using inappropriate distant planning techniques has imperilledsuccessful efforts in the past, contributed to the waste of borrowed resources,and brought on disastrous and unfortunate consequences that have retardedthe local planning process and progressive development (De Jong et al. 2003;Neuman 2005).

It remains the case that the problems of cities in this region can be over-come through the practice of democracy. Although most South Asian



countries (the exceptions being India, Sri Lanka, and Maldives) have notenjoyed much democracy in the past, there are positive signs for democracythroughout the region. Recent parliamentary elections in Pakistan, Nepal, andBhutan are signs of the future democratization of these societies—providedthe military junta in Pakistan, the Maoist group in Nepal, and the royal familyin Bhutan do not destabilize the elected governments. Similarly, Bangladeshis setting the stage for a new start after a military-backed caretaker govern-ment ruled the country from January 2007 to December 2009.Democratization needs to be continued diligently, however, so that people’sparticipation increases in all aspects of life. They deserve to have their voicesheard when designing their cities and societies, and to achieve their ownempowerment. Only then can normative planning theories be applicable andfruitful in South Asian cities.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to acknowledge valuable comments on earlier versionsof the manuscript by Vanessa Watson and David Nemeth.

Notes1 The South Asian countries include Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri

Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, and Afghanistan. 2 Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka were colonized by the British for

about 200 years. Many scholars and South Asian people believe that their currenteconomic hardship is largely due to the British colonization of their countries.

3 “The politics of many” means that the views of many cultures, races, ethnicities,and so on are to be respected and given full consideration; no valid claim shouldbe turned down.

4 The upazila is the third planning stratum in Bangladesh, next to the district level. 5 The union parisad is the fourth and lowest level in Bangladesh’s planning

system. This type of planning hierarchy is common in South Asia, althoughdifferent terminologies are used in different countries based on language differ-ences.

6 Bastee is a term used in South Asia as a synonym for the slums located in thecentral cities as well as for the squatter settlements usually located on the periph-eries of large cities in Third World countries.

7 The rickshaw, a popular mode of transportation in South Asian cities, is a three-wheeled vehicle. Some cities have rickshaws pulled directly by the puller, whilein other cities the rickshaws have paddles that the puller uses to move the vehicleforward. Two passengers can ride on a rickshaw at a time. Most bastee men inlarge South Asian cities are employed in this informal sector.

8 In seven provinces in eastern India, ethnic groups have staged movements forindependence from India. These provinces—Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam—are known as the “sevensisters.’



9 The Babri Mosque was built by the Emperor Babar during the 16th century. In1992, Bishshaw Hindu Parishad and its allies demolished the mosque, with directhelp from the opposition BJP. The then ruling Indian Congress Party did not takethe necessary measures to protect the religious rights of minority Muslim citi-zens. Finally, on 6 December 1992, the mosque was demolished, and the religiousflag of Hinduism was hoisted atop the mosque.

10 United India included present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. On 14August 1947, Pakistan declared its independence; India declared its indepen-dence on the following day, 15 August 1947. At that time, Pakistan was a frag-mented country with two wings, West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and EastPakistan (present-day Bangladesh). East Pakistan and West Pakistan fought fornine months in 1971; on 16 December 1971, East Pakistan became the indepen-dent People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

11 Proshika is the third largest NGO in Bangladesh. There have been many allega-tions against the authorities of this NGO and its allies, including that they haveforced poor borrowing members to be involved in and support the political standof Proshika. Several lawsuits are ongoing against the administration of Proshikaregarding (1) misuse of borrowed money in the name of helping the poor, (2) ille-gal involvement in politics, and (3) trying to uproot an elected government.

ReferencesAlbrechts, L. 2006. Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe

and Australia. Environment and Planning A 38:1149–70.Allen, C. 1997. Who needs civil society? Review of African Political Economy

73:329–37.Allmendinger, P., and Gunder, M. 2005. Applying Lacanian insight and a dash of

Derridean deconstruction to planning’s “dark side.” Planning Theory4(1):87–112.

Beatley, T. 1984. Applying moral principles to growth management. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 50:459–69.

———. 1991. A set of ethical principles to guide land use policy. Land Use Policy3:3–9.

Beauregard, R. 1998. Writing the planner. Journal of Planning Education andResearch 18(2):93–101.

Bickerstaff, K., and Walker, G. 2001. Participatory local governance and transportplanning. Environment and Planning A 33:431–51.

Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]. 2009a. CIA World Factbook: Bangladesh.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html.

———. 2009b. CIA World Factbook: Nepal. https://www.cia.gov/library/publica-tions/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html.

———. 2009c. CIA World Factbook: Pakistan. https://www.cia.gov/library/publica-tions/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html.

Chettiparamb, A. 2006. Bottom-up planning and the future of planning education inIndia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:185–94.

Clark, J. 1991. Democratizing development: The role of voluntary organizations.Sterling, Virginia: Kumarian Press.



De Jong, M., Lalenis, K., and Mamadouh, V. 2003. The theory and practice of insti-tutional transplantation: Experiences with the transfer of policy institutions.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Devine, J. 2006. NGOs, politics and grassroots mobilisation: Evidence fromBangladesh. Journal of South Asian Development 1(1):77–99.

Dutt, A. K., and Pomeroy, G. M. 2008. Cities of South Asia. In Cities of the world:World regional urban development, 4th ed., ed. S. D. Brunn, M. Hays-Mitchell,and D. J. Ziegler, 384–427. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ellis, G. 2004. Discourses of objection: Towards an understanding of third-partyrights in planning. Environment and Planning A 36:1549–70.

Fainstein, S. 1995. Politics, economics, and planning: Why urban regimes matter.Planning Theory 14:34–41.

———. 2000. New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review 35:451–78.Faludi, A. 1973. Planning theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California

Press.Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.———. 1996. Two centuries of planning theory: An overview. In Explorations in

planning theory, ed. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 10–29. NewBrunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Gunder, M. 2005. The production of desirous space: Mere fantasies of the utopiancity? Planning Theory 4:173–99.

Gunder, M., and Hillier, J. 2004. Conforming to the expectations of the profession: ALacanian perspective on planning practice, norms and values. Planning Theoryand Practice 5:217–35.

———. 2007. Planning as urban therapeutic. Environment and Planning A39:467–86.

Habermas, J. 1990a. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Press.

———. 1990b. The theory of communicative action. Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.

Harvey, D. 2000. Spaces of hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies.

Vancouver: UBC Press.———. 1999. Institutional analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places.

Journal of Planning Education and Research 18(2):111–21.Hillier, J., and Gunder, M. 2003. Planning fantasies? An exploration of a potential

Lacanian framework for understanding development assessment planning.Planning Theory 2:225–48.

Howe, E. 1990. Normative ethics in planning. Journal of Planning Literature5:123–50.

———. 1994. Acting on ethics on planning. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center forUrban Policy Research.

Howe, E., and Kauffman, J. 1979. The ethics of contemporary American planners.Journal of the American Planning Association 45:243–55.



Innes, J. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action andinteractive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3):183–89.

Islam, H., Hoque, S. O., and Islam, N. 1994. The role of credit in urban poorwomen’s commercial activities in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Paper presented at theInternational Seminar on Commercial Activity, Women, and Ecology,International Geographical Union and Bangladesh Geographical Society,Dhaka, 24–26 November.

Islam, M. A., and Islam, N. 1994. Urban governance in Bangladesh with particularreference to environmental management. Paper presented at a Sub-regionalWorkshop on Urban Governance in the Developing World: Bangladesh andPakistan.

Islam, N., and Ahsan, R. M. 1996. Urban Bangladesh: Geographical studies. Dhaka:University of Dhaka.

Khan, A. U. 1994. Urban governance in Pakistan with relation to urban planning anddevelopment. Paper presented at a Sub-regional Workshop on UrbanGovernance in the Developing World: Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Majumder, P., et al. 1996. The squatters of Dhaka City: Dynamics in the life ofAgargaon squatters. Dhaka: University Press Limited.

Mandelbaum, S. J. 1996. Introduction: The talk of the community. In Explorations inplanning theory, ed. S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell, 3–10.New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research.

———. 2000. Open moral community. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Mathur, O. P. 2000. Governing cities in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka: Facing up to the

challenge of poverty and globalization. In Urban governance in Asia: Sub-regional and city perspectives, ed. N. Islam. Dhaka: Center for Urban Studies.

McIlwaine, C. 1998. Contesting civil society: Reflections from El Salvador. ThirdWorld Quarterly 19:651–72.

Mohan, G., and Stokke, K. 2000. Participatory development and empowerment: Thedangers of localism. Third World Quarterly 21:247–68.

Neuman, M. 2000. Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and plural-ism? Journal of Planning Education and Research 19:343–50.

———. 2005. Notes on the uses and scope of city planning theory. Planning Theory4:123–45.

Peattie, L. 1987. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guyana. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

Rondinelli, D. 1993. Development projects as policy experiments. London:Routledge.

Rondinelli, D., et al. 1988. Decentralization in developing countries. Washington,D.C.: World Bank.

Sager, T. 2001. Positive theory of planning: The social choice approach. Environmentand Planning A 33:629–47.

Salahuddin, S. 1992. Municipal finance and administration in Pakistan (UMD-AsiaOccasional Paper No. 17). Kuala Lumpur: Urban Management Programme,Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, and United Nations Center for HumanSettlements.



Sandercock, L. 1998a. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities.Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

———. 1998b. The death of modernist planning: Radical praxis for a postmodernage. In Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age,ed. M. Douglass and J. Friedmann, 163–84. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

———. 2000. Negotiating fear and desire: The future of planning in multiculturalsocieties. Urban Form 11:201–10.

Smith, D. 2000. Third World cities. London: Routledge.Staudt, K. 1991. Managing development: State, society, and international contexts.

Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications.Task Force on Government Malpractices. 1991. Report of the Task Forces on

Bangladesh Strategies for the 1990s, vol. 3. Dhaka: University Press Limited. Wachs, M., ed. 1985. Ethics in planning. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for

Urban Policy Research.Watson, V. 2002. The usefulness of normative planning theories in the context of

Sub-Saharan Africa. Planning Theory 1:27–52.Zahid, S. 1996. Development planning and project management in Bangladesh.

Kotbari, Comilla: Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD).



are anglo-american-style normative planning theories ... - are anglo...are anglo-american-style...

Documents